SELVARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-333
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 24,2020

SELVARAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.PUGALENDHI, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Kumar @ Udayakumar, son of Raman, aged 37 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 17.09.2019, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Goonda". Challenging the same, the petititoner is before this Court in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully.
(3.) This detention order is predicated on the ground case in Aranthangi Police Station Crime No.358 of 2019 under Sections 294(b) , 427 , 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. In Paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has clearly stated that the bail application filed by the detenu has been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, by order dated 05.09.2019 in Cr.M.P.No.2069 of 2019, whereas, the Detaining Authority has observed that further resource to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, but, no materials, whatsoever, have been placed on record to show that the detenu is taking steps to file bail applications. Moreover, the Sponsoring Authority has not produced any similar case particulars, where bail was granted to the accused therein by the Courts concerned. In the absence of any such documents, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is vitiated and on that ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.